I have given my last donation of any kind to NPR and PBS after learning today that Juan Williams was fired for making what can only be called a bland statement about Muslims on the Bill O'Reilly show.
Here is what Williams said: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Williams only said what probably 90 percent of Americans believe if they are being honest with themselves. The fact that he was fired for it is an example of just how ludicrous political correctness has become in the United States.
Williams, after all, is a political commentator and he was simply doing what he is paid to do: comment on the body politic of the nation.
In its statement announcing Williams' firing NPR said: . "His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."
I know Juan Williams--not well, but I know enough of his professional background to know that while he may lean occasionally to the left his is one of the most reasonable liberal voices on the airwaves.
I met Juan when he came to the University of Illinois a few years back to give a talk. At the time I was Dean of the College of Media and a professor of Journalism. I found Juan a thoughtful professional. We talked about stories we had covered (I was a foreign correspondent for much of my 25 years with the Chicago Tribune) and discussed some of the issues of the day over lunch.
The United States used to be a place where people could hold respectful discussions about issues that impact our nation. No more.
Look at what happened on the cackling hen house called The View when Bill O'Reilly went on the show and said it was Muslims who killed innocent victims at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in that field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. Anybody with an ounce of brains knows that he was not saying "all Muslims" were behind the attacks. He was simply stating a fact. The men on these planes were Muslims. They weren't Rosicrucian's, Shinto priests, Shriners or Buddhists.
The point both he and Williams were trying to make was that there is a global problem with Muslims who want societies to adjust to their religion, their way of life and their social mores, rather than the other way around.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said exactly that when she announced this past week that the multicultural model for integration in Germany has “miserably failed.” Merkel showed tremendous political courage when she expressed a clear position in an ongoing debate over the integration of immigrants – especially Muslims – into German society, stressing that the current situation must be changed.
According to Merkel, immigrants should be required to integrate into society, by committing to learn the German language – and not only be allowed to do so voluntarily, as has been the policy up until now.
Had she made those statements in the United States as an American politician the clucking hens on The View would have all walked off the set and Merkel would have been pilloried by the liberal political correctness police.
The fact is, Islam is not a tolerant religion. As a foreign correspondent I spent a lot of time in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Religious tolerance does not exist in any of those countries. Try being a Christian or Jew in Pakistan or Iran or Saudia Arabia. I witnessed the persecution of non-Muslims in many of these countries by the Islamic "Religious Police" who enforce Sharia law with a vengeance.
Simply stated, Sharia law is medieval Fascism. It was a set of laws made up by Islamic scholars that became laws governing all the Islamic Caliphates. Today, radical Islam seeks to impose it, whether through violent jihad or through cultural jihad, the latter of which is a jihad to overthrow existing societies [including the democratic west] and to impose Sharia law from within.
In fact, Sharia law is inconsistent with the American Constitution. It strips away individual rights, limits free speech, invades the privacy of people's homes and condones violent attacks not only on infidels but Muslim women and children who deviate from Sharia law.
Of course, in this country you cannot say such things on the airwaves if you work for NPR--even as a paid commentator/analyst such as Juan Williams. Your views must be consistent with the politically correct policies of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Political correctness in the United States is having a chilling effect on public discourse. When you must continually worry about who you might offend when making a point I fear we are on a dangerous path--one that will lead us to a nation where the First Amendment is nothing more than a quaint 18th Century notion no longer applicable to the narrow-minded, intolerant, politically correct state liberals are pushing us to become.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
"Committing Journalism" is NOT Reporting
Recently a member of the Vietnam Old Hacks organization I belong to offered a valuable discussion about what is happening to journalism today.
His point was that young journalists today are increasingly ill-equipped to do good journalism. This may be a failure of journalism schools to properly prepare them for the rigors of superior journalistic practice. Or it may be a lack of leadership in professional newsrooms.
As someone who has toiled in both worlds (27 years with the Chicago Tribune and 13 years at the University of Illinois--7 of those as Dean of the College of Media, which includes the Departments of Journalism, Advertising, Media and Cinema Studies and the Institute of Communications Research) I can tell you that he offered a pretty accurate appraisal of some of the inmates of the academy who are teaching the next generation of old hacks--if indeed there will ever be a "next" generation.
This past year some members of the AEJMC (Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications), which is the umbrella organization for all accredited journalism programs in the country (about 110 at last count) squabbled for weeks about dropping the word "newspaper" from the organization's "Newspaper Division" because many academics believe newspapers are already dead.
Never mind that many newspapers are reinventing themselves and using new technologies and delivery platforms to reach readers and advertisers. Of course, there is the fact that too many of the young minds sitting in journalism classes are being indoctrinated with the idea that technology is the driver and accurate and compelling content is some kind of journalistic afterthought.
In my classes (I taught what I did for 25 years at the Trib--foreign correspondence) too many students had the idea that all they had to do was sit at a computer conduct Google searches and cull the Internet for information and then rewrite it with their own twist of style, etc.
The idea of actually going out and talking to people--sometimes in far away and dangerous places--was anathema to some students. Thankfully, after telling them enough of my own war stories, those students moved on to English Literature or Film Studies.
Of the handful that remained some have actually gone on to be correspondents. I hear from them on occasion and what I hear is that editors and producers are under increasing pressure to cut costs.
When I was sent abroad for my first posting in Japan back in 1974 I was told quite clearly: "Never let money stand between you and a good story. Do what you have to do to get to where the story is." That's how I operated for most of my career until the mid 1990s when the bean counters finally gained control of the Tribune and news gathering became much less important than keeping the bottom line fat for the stockholders.
Needless to say, those are NOT the kind of marching orders reporters receive today. I fear that the combination of money woes, lack of good old-fashioned newsroom mentoring and the infatuation with new technologies are conspiring to reduce reporting to armies of "communicators" who do no first hand reporting.
Today, almost anybody with a computer or I-Phone can "commit journalism." Unfortunately, that's a lot like committing a crime--and the public is the victim.
His point was that young journalists today are increasingly ill-equipped to do good journalism. This may be a failure of journalism schools to properly prepare them for the rigors of superior journalistic practice. Or it may be a lack of leadership in professional newsrooms.
As someone who has toiled in both worlds (27 years with the Chicago Tribune and 13 years at the University of Illinois--7 of those as Dean of the College of Media, which includes the Departments of Journalism, Advertising, Media and Cinema Studies and the Institute of Communications Research) I can tell you that he offered a pretty accurate appraisal of some of the inmates of the academy who are teaching the next generation of old hacks--if indeed there will ever be a "next" generation.
This past year some members of the AEJMC (Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications), which is the umbrella organization for all accredited journalism programs in the country (about 110 at last count) squabbled for weeks about dropping the word "newspaper" from the organization's "Newspaper Division" because many academics believe newspapers are already dead.
Never mind that many newspapers are reinventing themselves and using new technologies and delivery platforms to reach readers and advertisers. Of course, there is the fact that too many of the young minds sitting in journalism classes are being indoctrinated with the idea that technology is the driver and accurate and compelling content is some kind of journalistic afterthought.
In my classes (I taught what I did for 25 years at the Trib--foreign correspondence) too many students had the idea that all they had to do was sit at a computer conduct Google searches and cull the Internet for information and then rewrite it with their own twist of style, etc.
The idea of actually going out and talking to people--sometimes in far away and dangerous places--was anathema to some students. Thankfully, after telling them enough of my own war stories, those students moved on to English Literature or Film Studies.
Of the handful that remained some have actually gone on to be correspondents. I hear from them on occasion and what I hear is that editors and producers are under increasing pressure to cut costs.
When I was sent abroad for my first posting in Japan back in 1974 I was told quite clearly: "Never let money stand between you and a good story. Do what you have to do to get to where the story is." That's how I operated for most of my career until the mid 1990s when the bean counters finally gained control of the Tribune and news gathering became much less important than keeping the bottom line fat for the stockholders.
Needless to say, those are NOT the kind of marching orders reporters receive today. I fear that the combination of money woes, lack of good old-fashioned newsroom mentoring and the infatuation with new technologies are conspiring to reduce reporting to armies of "communicators" who do no first hand reporting.
Today, almost anybody with a computer or I-Phone can "commit journalism." Unfortunately, that's a lot like committing a crime--and the public is the victim.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
CLOSE LOCKER ROOM DOORS TO ALL MEDIA
Now that the racket over "sports reporter" Ines Sainz has subsided a bit, let me make a few points. Sainz, for those of you who have been residing in a cave the past week, is the Mexican TV Azteca reporter who entered the N. Y. Jets locker room looking like a Las Vegas hooker.
First, I have never understood the double standard here. Why are women reporters allowed to enter locker rooms where men are walking around in the buff while male reporters are not allowed to do the same in the locker rooms of female athletes?
Second, why is it necessary for reporters--be they male or female--to enter any locker room where athletes are showering, getting dressed, undressed, etc?
I spent most of my life as a foreign and national correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. As such, I covered a lot of international sports--the Olympics, international basketball games, baseball, football etc.
Like other reporters I was allowed into locker rooms to interview male athletes--never female athletes. Even so, I never felt really comfortable talking to naked male athletes and I am sure I would have had trouble forming intelligent questions talking to naked female athletes.
So why not bar both men and women from locker rooms. Why can't the athletes be made available after a contest and before they hit the showers? Or if that won't work, why not wait until they have showered and dressed before reporters are granted access?
OK, I have heard some of the arguments. Reporters have deadlines and need to get to the athletes asap. Bull! The 10 or 15 minutes athletes need to shower and dress are hardly going to make a difference--not today when stories are posted on the Internet with seconds of a sporting event.
The Ines Sainz affair is one in a long line of similar cases involving women in men's locker rooms. Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis had his knuckles rapped by team big wigs for saying it, but his comments about Sainz had a ray of truth about them, i.e., that the combination of female reporters and "53 male packages" on display was a recipe for....well, you figure it out.
The idea here is that women reporters who enter locker rooms are "professionals" and should be treated as such. Once again, however, there is a need for some propriety here. Ms. Sainz entered the N.Y. Jets locker wearing jeans that looked like they were painted on. OK, we can argue that no matter what a person wears that is no excuse for boorish behavior or cat calls--things that went on in the Jets locker room when Sainz walked in.
But what about male reporters? Are they not "professionals" too? Can't they then be allowed to enter women's locker rooms the same way female reporters are allowed to enter men's locker rooms? Apparently not. Apparently they are not "professional" enough.
Lance Briggs of the Chicago Bears may have said it best when he said no female reporters should be allowed in a men's locker room.
“This is the same place where grown men are taking showers," he said. "This is the place where we [use the bathroom], and right outside of all these places we’re surrounded by media. As we’re drying off, we’re [unclothed] and trying to answer questions at the same time. It’s our realm. It’s our realm. The media has been welcomed into our realm. I’m not saying what happened there [in New York] is OK, but at the same time, maybe she didn’t belong in there. The men’s locker room is for men. Just like the women’s locker room is for women.”
The best solution is to ban the media from ALL locker rooms where athletes are showering, getting dressed, etc. Many colleges already do this and it is the right thing for the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB to do also.
Keep the locker room doors closed to all media. Short of that allow reporters in only if they are blindfolded.
After all, why are reporters at a sporting event anyway? To cover the game, the match, the race, etc.
They are definitely NOT there to become the center of attention in the men's locker room. And yet that is what Ms. Sainz achieved....and I have a feeling that is exactly what she wanted.
First, I have never understood the double standard here. Why are women reporters allowed to enter locker rooms where men are walking around in the buff while male reporters are not allowed to do the same in the locker rooms of female athletes?
Second, why is it necessary for reporters--be they male or female--to enter any locker room where athletes are showering, getting dressed, undressed, etc?
I spent most of my life as a foreign and national correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. As such, I covered a lot of international sports--the Olympics, international basketball games, baseball, football etc.
Like other reporters I was allowed into locker rooms to interview male athletes--never female athletes. Even so, I never felt really comfortable talking to naked male athletes and I am sure I would have had trouble forming intelligent questions talking to naked female athletes.
So why not bar both men and women from locker rooms. Why can't the athletes be made available after a contest and before they hit the showers? Or if that won't work, why not wait until they have showered and dressed before reporters are granted access?
OK, I have heard some of the arguments. Reporters have deadlines and need to get to the athletes asap. Bull! The 10 or 15 minutes athletes need to shower and dress are hardly going to make a difference--not today when stories are posted on the Internet with seconds of a sporting event.
The Ines Sainz affair is one in a long line of similar cases involving women in men's locker rooms. Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis had his knuckles rapped by team big wigs for saying it, but his comments about Sainz had a ray of truth about them, i.e., that the combination of female reporters and "53 male packages" on display was a recipe for....well, you figure it out.
The idea here is that women reporters who enter locker rooms are "professionals" and should be treated as such. Once again, however, there is a need for some propriety here. Ms. Sainz entered the N.Y. Jets locker wearing jeans that looked like they were painted on. OK, we can argue that no matter what a person wears that is no excuse for boorish behavior or cat calls--things that went on in the Jets locker room when Sainz walked in.
But what about male reporters? Are they not "professionals" too? Can't they then be allowed to enter women's locker rooms the same way female reporters are allowed to enter men's locker rooms? Apparently not. Apparently they are not "professional" enough.
Lance Briggs of the Chicago Bears may have said it best when he said no female reporters should be allowed in a men's locker room.
“This is the same place where grown men are taking showers," he said. "This is the place where we [use the bathroom], and right outside of all these places we’re surrounded by media. As we’re drying off, we’re [unclothed] and trying to answer questions at the same time. It’s our realm. It’s our realm. The media has been welcomed into our realm. I’m not saying what happened there [in New York] is OK, but at the same time, maybe she didn’t belong in there. The men’s locker room is for men. Just like the women’s locker room is for women.”
The best solution is to ban the media from ALL locker rooms where athletes are showering, getting dressed, etc. Many colleges already do this and it is the right thing for the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB to do also.
Keep the locker room doors closed to all media. Short of that allow reporters in only if they are blindfolded.
After all, why are reporters at a sporting event anyway? To cover the game, the match, the race, etc.
They are definitely NOT there to become the center of attention in the men's locker room. And yet that is what Ms. Sainz achieved....and I have a feeling that is exactly what she wanted.
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Reporter and Ethics
I am a member of an organization of former Vietnam war correspondents called "Vietnam Old Hacks." This is a large group of many of the best reporters who ever covered war. Many went on to cover other wars--perhaps too many, for some paid the ultimate price doing the work they loved.
Recently on the Vietnam Old Hacks listserv, the following excerpt from a story by reporter David Wood was published. Here are the first few paragraphs:
"I'm going back to Afghanistan to report on the war. But after the (Gen. Stanley) McChrystal fiasco, what the heck are the rules?
This will be my fifth time in Afghanistan since 2001. I'll be hanging out with several battalions of the 10th Mountain Division, whom I've traveled with and reported on for going on two decades in places like Somalia, the Balkans and Afghanistan.
So this will be familiar ground. Except for the new cloud of uncertainty that came between soldiers and journalists after Gen. McChrystal and his top aides jocularly derided the Obama administration and others, in front of a reporter. Result: Rolling Stone Magazine won a place in history for its sensational story on "The Runaway General,'' and the general was forced into ignominious retirement after a brilliant career for what he may have assumed was off-the-record barstool banter."
It appears the reporter who wrote the Rolling Stone piece committed an unforgiveable breach of journalistic ethics in reporting what McChrystal and his aides said. Of course, I don't know the ground rules that were established between the general and the reporter. However, it is doubtful the general said what he did on the record.
During my time as a correspondent in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Afghanistan, etc. I often had off the cuff conversations with high ranking officials who were also valuable sources. One thing I learned early on in my journalistic career was NOT to burn a source. Once you do that, you have lost that person as a source forever.
I can't count the number of times someone in the U.S. Embassy in Saigon or San Salvador or Islamabad told me something that could have gotten them fired because they were venting about someone or some policy. Some of these comments were pretty damning. Did I rush off to my hotel room to pound out a story? (In the days before computers we hacks used portable typewriters.
No I didn't. Because I knew intuitively that this person was trusting me NOT to write a piece based on our private conversation. How many times did I meet CIA contacts in bars on Saigon's Tu Do street and how many times did they divulge juicy tidbits about what was happening the Embassy? I knew what I could and could not hang on these sources. In any case, most of these were background briefings unless we established "rules of banter." During our conversations these sources knew they could trust me not to burn them.
Some reporters, however, are trigger happy. They are always looking for that one story that will win them a slew of awards and thereby make their career. I always avoided reporters like that. These are the same men and women who will NOT have your back when things get dicey on the battlefield. They are dishonest, unscrupulously ambitious and dangerous.
But most important, they are in the news business for all the wrong reasons. The job of a reporter is to report accurately and fairly so the reading or viewing public can make informed decisions about their lives, the people they elect and those who are in power. They are "watchdogs" of government.
Some core principles of journalism are enduring, said the Committee of Concerned Journalists recently:
"As audiences fragment and our companies diversify, there is a growing debate within news organizations about our responsibilities as businesses and our responsibilities as journalists. Many journalists feel a sense of lost purpose. There is even doubt about the meaning of news, doubt evident when serious journalistic organizations drift toward opinion, infotainment and sensation out of balance with news.
“Yet as we change we assert some core principles of journalism are enduring. They are those that make journalism a public service central to self-government. They define our profession not as the act of communicating but as a set of responsibilities.
Journalism can entertain, amuse and lift our spirits, but news organizations also must cover the matters vital to the well being of our increasingly diverse communities and foster the debate upon which democracy depends. The First Amendment implies obligation as well as freedom."
There is a difference between being a responsible "watchdog" and an imprudent "newshound."
Recently on the Vietnam Old Hacks listserv, the following excerpt from a story by reporter David Wood was published. Here are the first few paragraphs:
"I'm going back to Afghanistan to report on the war. But after the (Gen. Stanley) McChrystal fiasco, what the heck are the rules?
This will be my fifth time in Afghanistan since 2001. I'll be hanging out with several battalions of the 10th Mountain Division, whom I've traveled with and reported on for going on two decades in places like Somalia, the Balkans and Afghanistan.
So this will be familiar ground. Except for the new cloud of uncertainty that came between soldiers and journalists after Gen. McChrystal and his top aides jocularly derided the Obama administration and others, in front of a reporter. Result: Rolling Stone Magazine won a place in history for its sensational story on "The Runaway General,'' and the general was forced into ignominious retirement after a brilliant career for what he may have assumed was off-the-record barstool banter."
It appears the reporter who wrote the Rolling Stone piece committed an unforgiveable breach of journalistic ethics in reporting what McChrystal and his aides said. Of course, I don't know the ground rules that were established between the general and the reporter. However, it is doubtful the general said what he did on the record.
During my time as a correspondent in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Afghanistan, etc. I often had off the cuff conversations with high ranking officials who were also valuable sources. One thing I learned early on in my journalistic career was NOT to burn a source. Once you do that, you have lost that person as a source forever.
I can't count the number of times someone in the U.S. Embassy in Saigon or San Salvador or Islamabad told me something that could have gotten them fired because they were venting about someone or some policy. Some of these comments were pretty damning. Did I rush off to my hotel room to pound out a story? (In the days before computers we hacks used portable typewriters.
No I didn't. Because I knew intuitively that this person was trusting me NOT to write a piece based on our private conversation. How many times did I meet CIA contacts in bars on Saigon's Tu Do street and how many times did they divulge juicy tidbits about what was happening the Embassy? I knew what I could and could not hang on these sources. In any case, most of these were background briefings unless we established "rules of banter." During our conversations these sources knew they could trust me not to burn them.
Some reporters, however, are trigger happy. They are always looking for that one story that will win them a slew of awards and thereby make their career. I always avoided reporters like that. These are the same men and women who will NOT have your back when things get dicey on the battlefield. They are dishonest, unscrupulously ambitious and dangerous.
But most important, they are in the news business for all the wrong reasons. The job of a reporter is to report accurately and fairly so the reading or viewing public can make informed decisions about their lives, the people they elect and those who are in power. They are "watchdogs" of government.
Some core principles of journalism are enduring, said the Committee of Concerned Journalists recently:
"As audiences fragment and our companies diversify, there is a growing debate within news organizations about our responsibilities as businesses and our responsibilities as journalists. Many journalists feel a sense of lost purpose. There is even doubt about the meaning of news, doubt evident when serious journalistic organizations drift toward opinion, infotainment and sensation out of balance with news.
“Yet as we change we assert some core principles of journalism are enduring. They are those that make journalism a public service central to self-government. They define our profession not as the act of communicating but as a set of responsibilities.
Journalism can entertain, amuse and lift our spirits, but news organizations also must cover the matters vital to the well being of our increasingly diverse communities and foster the debate upon which democracy depends. The First Amendment implies obligation as well as freedom."
There is a difference between being a responsible "watchdog" and an imprudent "newshound."
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Decline of Style and Class
You have probably received one of those e-mails displaying photos of so-called "Walmart People." As you scroll down there is a collection photos of Walmart shoppers wearing wild assortments of clothing covering bodies that seem fashioned from silly putty or carved from tree stumps.
There are horribly overweight women wearing inadequate shorts barely covering explosions of tattoo blemished buttock flesh; there are men wearing pink leotards and combat boots; there are people who seem to have crawled out of a fissure in the earth--troglodytes perhaps? Or conceivably humanoid-like creatures from another planet that crash landed into a Goodwill warehouse?
Can any of this be real? Do people really look like that? And do they go to Walmart and other places?
The answer is yes, yes and yes. These are real people. They do look like that and they actually abandon their dank and murky grottos to venture into well lit public places such as Walmart.
What happened? How did the nation spawn organisms that apparently have no concept of taste, style or class?
Beyond these "Walmart people" I think national taste and style hit a new low when the Northwestern University women's 2005 national championship lacrosse team showed up at the White House in wearing flip flops. What does this say about respect for the nation's highest office, let alone personal pride and class?
It says none of that matters anymore. It says if you want to go to a funeral wearing cargo shorts and a tank top it's OK because the most important thing is not showing a modicum of respect for the deceased, but how YOU feel.
The whole concept of “class” or what it means to be classy is an unknown quality with too many people today. Nothing is left to the imagination. In movies the camera must go through the bedroom door and act as voyeur as actors and actresses engage in multiple forms of mattress gymnastics. Remember movies when a couple would go through a door and then the next scene would be the next day? That’s enough…leave something to the imagination for God’s sake. Can you imagine Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Audrey Hepburn, Rita Hayworth, etc. baring it all for a scene with a nude Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, James Stewart or Burt Lancaster? Wouldn’t have happened. Great actresses of today such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslett and Cate Blanchett know you don't have to do the horizontal waltz in order to exude sex appeal. They leave something to the imagination.
So why do otherwise intelligent women show up at the White House in flip flops? Why do "Walmart people" feel they can go shopping looking like two legged rubbish bins?
There is very little child rearing, I fear. Too many parents are abrogating that responsibility to schools, day care centers, etc. The result is a nation in which millions of kids have little or no understanding of common values, self-discipline, social responsibility, respect for others or what we used to call “good manners.” All of that is simply passé. The idea for young girls today is to look like trash, show as much booty as they can and have a big tattoo poking out above their butt crack.
When I was teaching at the University of Illinois, I couldn’t believe how many female students came to my morning class in their pajamas. They could have cared less how they appeared. But hey, at least they were comfortable.
We can argue that its "generational." OK, I agree, up to a point. Back in "the day," we wore tight jeans, some of us had ducktail haircuts, and we liked to cruise around in customized cars with loud glass pack mufflers. But how many of us looked like those people at Walmart--or for that matter at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, or I-Hop? Because I have seen them at those places also.
People took a lot more pride in their appearance mainly because (in my case, at least) my mother would never have allowed me to walk out the door looking like a vagrant. I think too many parents today don't provide that kind of supervision. Few teach their kids any kind of discipline. School teachers today tell me that when they get kids from homes like that (and that means most kids) every time they attempt to discipline them the parents circle the wagons around their brats and often it's the teacher who gets disciplined. I can't imagine what it must be like to teach high school today.
Who knows where all of this will end. I am not optimistic. I think I will take my camera to my nearest Walmart and digitally bag a few troglodytes.
There are horribly overweight women wearing inadequate shorts barely covering explosions of tattoo blemished buttock flesh; there are men wearing pink leotards and combat boots; there are people who seem to have crawled out of a fissure in the earth--troglodytes perhaps? Or conceivably humanoid-like creatures from another planet that crash landed into a Goodwill warehouse?
Can any of this be real? Do people really look like that? And do they go to Walmart and other places?
The answer is yes, yes and yes. These are real people. They do look like that and they actually abandon their dank and murky grottos to venture into well lit public places such as Walmart.
What happened? How did the nation spawn organisms that apparently have no concept of taste, style or class?
Beyond these "Walmart people" I think national taste and style hit a new low when the Northwestern University women's 2005 national championship lacrosse team showed up at the White House in wearing flip flops. What does this say about respect for the nation's highest office, let alone personal pride and class?
It says none of that matters anymore. It says if you want to go to a funeral wearing cargo shorts and a tank top it's OK because the most important thing is not showing a modicum of respect for the deceased, but how YOU feel.
The whole concept of “class” or what it means to be classy is an unknown quality with too many people today. Nothing is left to the imagination. In movies the camera must go through the bedroom door and act as voyeur as actors and actresses engage in multiple forms of mattress gymnastics. Remember movies when a couple would go through a door and then the next scene would be the next day? That’s enough…leave something to the imagination for God’s sake. Can you imagine Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Audrey Hepburn, Rita Hayworth, etc. baring it all for a scene with a nude Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, James Stewart or Burt Lancaster? Wouldn’t have happened. Great actresses of today such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslett and Cate Blanchett know you don't have to do the horizontal waltz in order to exude sex appeal. They leave something to the imagination.
So why do otherwise intelligent women show up at the White House in flip flops? Why do "Walmart people" feel they can go shopping looking like two legged rubbish bins?
There is very little child rearing, I fear. Too many parents are abrogating that responsibility to schools, day care centers, etc. The result is a nation in which millions of kids have little or no understanding of common values, self-discipline, social responsibility, respect for others or what we used to call “good manners.” All of that is simply passé. The idea for young girls today is to look like trash, show as much booty as they can and have a big tattoo poking out above their butt crack.
When I was teaching at the University of Illinois, I couldn’t believe how many female students came to my morning class in their pajamas. They could have cared less how they appeared. But hey, at least they were comfortable.
We can argue that its "generational." OK, I agree, up to a point. Back in "the day," we wore tight jeans, some of us had ducktail haircuts, and we liked to cruise around in customized cars with loud glass pack mufflers. But how many of us looked like those people at Walmart--or for that matter at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, or I-Hop? Because I have seen them at those places also.
People took a lot more pride in their appearance mainly because (in my case, at least) my mother would never have allowed me to walk out the door looking like a vagrant. I think too many parents today don't provide that kind of supervision. Few teach their kids any kind of discipline. School teachers today tell me that when they get kids from homes like that (and that means most kids) every time they attempt to discipline them the parents circle the wagons around their brats and often it's the teacher who gets disciplined. I can't imagine what it must be like to teach high school today.
Who knows where all of this will end. I am not optimistic. I think I will take my camera to my nearest Walmart and digitally bag a few troglodytes.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Journalism Courses Still Hot
You would think that with all of the dire news about the future of journalism and journalists flying around that journalism schools would be feeling the pinch.
Not so.
In fact, demand for journalism courses has never been higher. According to a recent survey by The Chronicle of Higher Education, enrollments are up in almost all of the nation's journalism schools.
I am not surprised by this finding. For one thing, most journalism schools have adapted to the changing media landscape and are offering courses that combine the fundamentals of good journalistic practice with new and emerging delivery platforms: blogs, twitter, online broadcasting, etc.
While I was dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois, I watched our student population double from 550 to more than 1,100 in less than two years once we moved from a two-year to a four-year program. Demand was so great for our courses that we had to turn away students.
That reflects a national trend. During the past 10 years enrollment in undergraduate journalism programs has increased 35 percent, to 201,477, according to The Chronicle. This is a time when some 30,000 journalists were either laid off or bought out since 2008.
One reason students are flocking to journalism schools at a time when the industry is undergoing such severe changes is a desire to learn the basics of writing. Knowing the basic skills of journalism will provide students with openings into many careers--not just classic newsroom journalism.
In fact, of some 90 programs, six of 10 graduates had jobs in the industry. The rest were engaged in some other form of communication--public relations, corporate communications, blogging, etc.
As I have often said in these blogs, journalism schools cannot nor should not emphasize technology and all new communications gadgetry currently available over fundamental journalistic skills. Teaching students the importance of accuracy, fairness, clear writing, as well as compelling storytelling and presentation are still critical elements to any journalism education.
Or as I always emphasized in my classes: "Kontent is still King." Just look at some of the horrendous blogs out there today. It doesn't take long to see how insipid so many are. You still need to provide substance in addition to the technological bling if you are going to hold reader or viewer attention.
Journalism, in the final analysis, is a "people" business. It is not a job you can do sitting in the comfort of your home in front of a computer screen. Journalists are not poets.
You need to get out and talk to people. You need to be, as I often say, a "professional intruder"--someone who is not afraid to ask tough or embarrassing questions, who can "see" a story and track down the necessary sources for it.
While traditional mainstream media changes and adapts to the new delivery platforms and business models, many new graduates are coming together to create their own news organizations. These are entities that are smaller, more nimble and flexible and more targeted than the old lumbering dailies or classic broadcast organizations. These are media that are linking up with advertisers in ways that are beneficial to both. They are finding readers and viewers that have abandoned traditional media and are looking for a more interactive media experience.
In short, today's journalism graduates have an opportunity I never had when I joined the Chicago Tribune right of college back in 1970. They can remake and reinvent journalism in ways that make it relevant to new audiences.
They will be successful doing this as long as they don't forget the most fundamental lessons that good journalism programs should be teaching: make sure content drives technology and not the other way around.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Writing Again! Hope You Will Take a Look!
After a multi-month hiatus I am back at the computer working on a couple of books and trying to keep my blog updated. Just moved from Illinois to the Southern California wine country and if I can keep my hands on the keyboard and off the wine bottles, I will actually get some serious writing done. That is something I was unable to do as the Dean of the College of Media for the past six years (I stepped down August 15).
The focus of my blog is the media in general--and the area of international news and events in particular. I spent about 25 years as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune (in an era when the Tribune ACTUALLY had foreign correspondents). I was posted in Asia and Latin America, so much of what I write about focuses on those regions, however, I also look at other parts of the world.
So hope you will stop by and let me know what you think!
Thanks,
Ron Yates
The focus of my blog is the media in general--and the area of international news and events in particular. I spent about 25 years as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune (in an era when the Tribune ACTUALLY had foreign correspondents). I was posted in Asia and Latin America, so much of what I write about focuses on those regions, however, I also look at other parts of the world.
So hope you will stop by and let me know what you think!
Thanks,
Ron Yates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)